Re: Bug#498477: GPL-compatiblity of python licenses
severity 498857 important
severity 498477 important
thanks
> I don't know the real implication on the license
if you're unsure then don't make it RC in the first place
> reopen 498857
> reopen 498477
> thanks
>
> OoO En cette nuit nuageuse du vendredi 19 septembre 2008, vers 00:53,
> Thomas Viehmann <tv@beamnet.de> disait=A0:
>
> > Hi Vincent,
> > thanks for looking into licensing issues in Debian.
>
> > How exactly is the python license GPL-incompatible?
>
> > If you scroll down a screen or two on the license[1] and move your
> > attention to the right column, you will find the assertion that all
> > recent versions of python have a GPL-compatible license, even indicating
> > where the FSF's opinion differs from the python copyright holders.
> > In particular, all python versions from oldstable onwards are
> > undisputedly GPL-compatible.
>
> Hi Thomas!
>
> I did not say that python license is GPL-incompatible. There are two
> problems:
> - the fact that readline.so module is linked to GNU Readline is not
> mentioned in debian/copyright where it should because if the user
> uses this module in some non-GPL work and distribute it, it will
> break GPL because GNU Readline is GPL.
> - _ssl.so is linked with OpenSSL and hence is incompatible with GPL
> without an exception that is not granted in GNU Readline. Therefore,
> a program cannot be linked to both readline.so and _ssl.so.
>
> GPL compatibility only says that you can mix Python code with GPL code
> and get a valid GPL code (first footnote in debian/copyright highlights
> the meaning of "GPL compatible"). Python license is GPL compatible
> however not every piece of Python is licensed under Python license.
> debian/copyright contains some exceptions. readline.so is another
> exception that should be noted in debian/copyright.
>
> The rest of the world don't believe there is no problem with this. Apple
> removed GNU Readline of its Python and replaced it with editline (which
> causes some incompatibilities).
>
> About the second problem, as both readline.so and _ssl.so are optional
> module, I am not really sure if this is a serious problem or if a note
> could be dropped in debian/copyright about the fact that a program using
> both _ssl.so and readline.so cannot be distributed.
>
> I am putting debian-legal@ in copy to those bugs to get some additional
> insights on this matter. I am not a lawyer.
> =2D-=20
> I WILL NOT AIM FOR THE HEAD
> I WILL NOT AIM FOR THE HEAD
> I WILL NOT AIM FOR THE HEAD
> =2D+- Bart Simpson on chalkboard in episode 8F13
>
Reply to: